Are there any examples of countries who don't tax the rich

[OnionPatch]

and yet there is widespread prosperity?

I don't understand where the tea-baggers get this idea that if we don't tax the rich, it's going to work out just wonderful for us all. What is supposed to happen if we don't tax the rich? What will happen to our parks, our roads, our infrastructure? I hope not taxing the rich means they're going to pay us a lot more because we're going to need a lot of extra money to pay for private roads, private fire departments, private schools for the kids, vacations in private forests and beaches, private security companies to take the place of our police, private investigators to take the place of the FBI. And we'll need a lot extra to pay for courthouses, a legal system, etc. The USDA, FDA, etc., will be defunct so we'll also need some extra time off so we can grow our own food because food and medicines bought on the market won't be trustworthy. Oh, and we'll need a lot of extra money to pay for the care of aging parents, sick and infirm neighbors and family members who will be on their own. (Or maybe we'll just set them outside on a cold, snowy night.) We'll also need a lot more to pay for the many charities we're going to have to support in order to fund things like space exploration, new technologies, public libraries, parks. We'll also need to put a whole lot more money in retirement funds since they're going to take our social security away.

Are teabag types really naive enough to think big business is going to raise our wages once we eliminate their taxes? And if not, how are we to pay for these things? I saw a teabagger wearing a shirt that said "Don't spread my wealth, spread my work ethic". These people actually believe they are the only ones who work hard, don't they, elitist assholes. :mad: That one made my blood pressure skyrocket because my husband and I worked our butts off to get an education and now are working our butts off at our jobs. However, we will never be able to afford all of these things above unless our employers suddenly become uncharacteristically benevolent and decide to double or triple our wages.

Why do I have the feeling that this "prosperity" the teabaggers talk about is really only meant for a few old white people with connections while the rest of us will be living in a van down by the river?

[mediaman007]

1. The Teabaggers rallying cry: "I've got mine..."

[Ian David]

2. Haiti. n/t

[NJ KID]

3. Can i ask a really stupid question

why would you ask a question like that on a board that is so slanted leftward. Do you honestly think anyone on this board would actually know of or if they do know of admit that this could happen ?

[OnionPatch]

4. Well, because I personally don't know any teabaggers to ask.

And I wondered if anyone here who knows some has asked them. I never hear any details on how this is all supposed to work. :shrug:

[jtuck004]

8. This is probably one of the best place to ask such a question.

I would wager that, in fact, someone here would have a well-informed answer to just about anything you might ask about.

This board has some of the most well-educated and informed people anywhere, in subjects ranging from politics to medicine to just about anything you can name.

And although there is widespread agreement on some parts of liberal and/or progressive philosophies and ideas, they are far from the lockstep denial-of-reality thinkers that one might find elsewhere. You are quite likely to find someone that pops up with a well-substantiated answer to your question, and then a dozen people who will argue various parts of it. Doesn't happen all the time, but it happens here more often than not.

[bemildred]

11. Clearly, you can. nt

[fasttense]

5. History provides multiple examples of countries that did NOT tax their uber wealthy.

The system is called feudalism. What eventually happens when you do not tax the greedy rich is that a handful of wealthy people own everything and they get to be King, Lords, Masters, Caesars. While the vast majority (serfs, peasants, slaves) live in abject poverty at the mercy of every whim the king may have. There is a very small middle class that is allowed to survive to serve the needs of the king. You don't want to under pay a good doctor. He may not try as hard to help you.

Once a person reaches a certain level of wealth, they can make wealth off of their wealth. They no longer need to work. They merely keep accumulating more wealth and possessions off of the money they hoard away. Eventually they own everything. That is why unrestricted corporations are so profitable. They keep sucking in more and more wealth, they never die, so they can accumulate huge amounts forever.

[OnionPatch]

6. So basically, they have no examples that their ideas work?

As I suspected. I can't fathom how so many people can buy into this idea when there are no examples at all that it works. We're supposed to switch over to an un-tried, unproven economic system in these uncertain times? That doesn't sound "conservative" at all to me.

[NJ KID]

7. Actually i just completed a course in my MBA Program

Advanced International Business and two or three currrent examples of low tax high growth economies were discussed.

My lab partner and i did a report on Singapore a country that has very low tax rates, very limited restrictions and is experiencing very high growth.

Also the United Arab emertis (probably spelled incorrectly ) has a very low tax base

There are also many examples of countries in the past having very low tax rates and experiencing how growth.

if you would like i will try and explain how the fundies say this works

[OnionPatch]

9. I've heard that the United Arab Emirates

is pretty much a playground for rich Arabs. I just read this at Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates

"Because of the rapid development of the UAE from a traditional, homogeneous society in the mid-20th century to a modern, multicultural one at the beginning of the 21st century, the concurrent development of legal provisions and the practical enforcement of existing laws has been challenging and, in consequence, problems exist mainly in regard to human rights of non-citizens, who make up around 80% of the population. Main issues include companies' and employers' non-compliance with labor laws.

Many expatriate workers, mostly of South Asian origin, have after their arrival in the UAE been turned into debt-ridden de facto indentured servants.<54> Confiscation of passports, although illegal, occurs on a large scale, primarily of unskilled or semi-skilled employees.<55>

Many workers come via contract companies. A typical worker from India might pay $1,300 as an initial payment to an agent, which has to be returned by the wages earned. The workers earn about $200 per month (about $1.20 per hour), which includes lodging and travel, but the worker has to pay for food, health insurance, etc. A worker working directly for a end company would typically make around $280 with added benefits of health insurance and food, and better living quarters.

The UAE's system of employment for non-citizens ties an employee to the employer and prevents him or her from seeking alternative employment without the express approval of the original employer. Also, non-payment of wages, cramped and unsanitary living conditions and poor safety practices are widespread and have been the subject of foreign media attention."

Sounds like their prosperity is not really all that wide-spread.

Well, my work ethic is calling me and I need to leave for work now. But sure, explain away.

[bemildred]

12. "High growth" was not the question, the question was "widespread prosperity".

As in a flat income/wealth distribution.

"High growth" is inherently unstable and not indicative of long-term (more than a couple decades) performance, in any case.

[westerebus]

13. Hi. Welcome to DU. n/t

[zeos3]

15. Yes, I would like you to explain how this works. Thanks.

[jtuck004]

16. I would like to hear that, please.

But I think the question was "widespread prosperity, not just growth. Both of those countries have classes of people with nothing, and severe barriers to upward mobility. Little to nothing in the way of health care for everyone, no unemployment, little to no food safety, lax environmental standards, etc. I think most of the "work" in the UAE is farmed out, reasonably low pay, kind of like we used to use Chinese workers.

I worked for a Singaporean company in the U.S in the 80's. The suits from Singapore would show up and walk through the office to the mgr's office. One day a woman working the phones watched them walk by - they sent a messenger back to tell her that it made them uncomfortable, and if she wanted to continue to work there she should keep her head down when they walked by.

Widespread, indeed.

Do the "fundies" have an explanation which covers that?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kat45]

22. "So in order to do this he hires more workers."

If he does indeed hire more workers, he will pay them as little as possible, given that his reason for all of his actions is to make more money for himself. He probably also will not offer health insurance benefits. Subsistence wages do not lead to increased prosperity for anyone but the business owner. Also, the jobs will not necessarily be created in this country. The new workers he hires may be in China, not the US. Thus, greed is not leading to increased prosperity in this country.

You also say that people wanting to help others is not a part of human nature. Is there any proof of that statement? I really hope it is not true because if it is, that's a really sad state of affairs. No, I do not think true socialism can work, however I like to think that there are people who want to help others.

[jtuck004]

26. Actually, you had to admit no such thing.

If greed, as the motivator of capitalism as defined in this post, was actually good for us, why are 30 million people unemployed and underemployed, more on food stamps than ever in our history, tens of millions of people out of their homes? The 7 largest banks and the bones of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros stand as a testament to the failure and tragedy of greed-based capitalism. Without pulling a gun, they gamed the system in manipulative ways, (when Enron did it it was called fraud and at least a couple people went to prison), If it hadn't been for several administrations and decades of congressional help, all of those firms would be run by someone else today, and a whole wing of a new prison would enough inmates for a dozen fantasy basketball leagues). Excepting the things they could not have done which would have been prevented by the regulations they helped remove.

If socialism - defined above as motivated by public service - fails, how would you explain the electrical lineman, logger, policeman, fireman, factory workers, meat-packers, etc, who, not being in the category of those who make the most money, or who can very likely work harder yet get no more gain, continue to do their work year after year, sometimes giving their lives in its pursuit?

The problem with most of that nonsense about capitalism is that they try to reduce it to a simple math formula and leave out the human psychology. Thus, they limit the discussion by defining the terms to suit their argument. Do we have a capitalist system when we are paying taxpayer money to McDonalds to train their people for the no-training-needed-fry-and-shake-machine system, paying billions of dollars to companies to build them up for defense work, only to watch them move those jobs out of the country when they see a chance at short-term profit, without ever requiring them to pay back the taxpayer money they benefited from? Is it capitalism when the state national guard is brought in to shoot women and children when their men won't work for the crappy wages being paid? Is it capitalism when the money made with taxpayer's labor is used to make good the bad bets of large numbers of wealthy people who made billions by forging documents to scam innumerate people sell sub prime mortgages to black people while selling lower interest rate mortgages to white people, all the while denying a pittance of unemployment or housing relief to the people whose lives they destroyed?

Is it socialism to take that same money and keep people from starving or living on the streets? How about taking that money and spreading the cost of roads, fire and police protection, zoning ordinances, all of which benefit the profits of business to a FAR greater extent than they do ordinary people, while the same business pays a disproportionately low share? Is it capitalism to move the health care and education costs of your workers back onto the workers, when the business is the major benefactor of healthy, well-trained employees?

Is it capitalism to encourage people to keep going to college when it is readily apparent to most people that they will have large debts and no job when they are finished? Given that, why do those people continue, since there is a very high probability that there will be a net loss for their pursuit?

There are so few pure examples, and so many arguments against it all, when you make the examples real world a lot of that junk falls apart.

Your mileage may vary ;)

[OnionPatch]

28. Yes, that was exactly it. Widespread prosperity.

Not uber-wealth for the few. From what I'm reading here and other places, Singapore and UAE are not fitting that criteria. From what I've read and seen for myself, in the countries that do tax the rich (say places in Europe, for example) the wealth is spread around much more evenly and the quality of life is much better for everyone. I just wondered where people get the idea that not taxing the rich is something that's going to help everyone. I also wonder why normal, working people would support a system where the masses are rewarded so stingily for their hard work while the few at the top reap in such obscene wealth.

[fasttense]

30. Wow, the UAE what great examples.

The poor are treated practically like slaves. They keep them pent up in restricted areas, take their pass ports, demand constant work, and barely feed them. I would call the poor slaves or serfs as a minimum.

[fasttense]

31. The question was NOT about a LOW Tax Rate but about

NO tax at all on the uber rich.

[the redcoat]

10. examples don't matter, ignorance is bliss

a lot of people/teabaggers have no idea that in the 1950's, during enormous american growth, the highest tax rates were around 90%, and these people still lived very, very well. theyve been brainwashed into thinking america used to be a pure capitalistic nation.

the problem is that when tax rates for the rich went down, it wasnt reflected in blue collar wages. in the 70's, the largest american company, GM, paid its workers $17/hour, and they were all unionized.

in 2010, the largest american company, walmart, pays its workers $12/hour, and fires you if you are pro-union. couple that with inflation. go ahead, do it. i'll wait right here.

so the end result is actually very exponential, essentially the "perfect storm" of money moving up the ladder.

[westerebus]

14. Hi. Welcome to DU.

I haven't been back to Jersey in years. I am curious as to when the stopped capitalizing the beginning of sentences? And yes, you will be graded on your response.

Just kidding.

[dmallind]

17. Well the devil's in the details

I suspect nobody would ever accept a country as having widespread prosperity. Poevrty exists everywhere. But measuring inequality of wealth using the GINI index and prosperity using the GDP purchasing power per capita we can make a decent stab at it on the aggregate.

Using World Factbook rankings I ranked the countries by worst GINI index 1-135 (the number of countries where it exists as a stat). I then ranked the same countries by highest GDP purchasing power parity by country and added the rsults. The lower the result (higher the ranking)the least equal but higher overall prosperity we have,

Hong Kong came out top ranked 16th on wealth inequality and 12th on GDP PPP for a rating of 28
Singapore next with 29th and 5th for 34
Then us with 42/8/50
I will exclude the 4th Botswana as an obviously poor nation included next only because of it's extraordinarily bad GINI.
Chile 14/73/87
Panama 12/90/102

The highest ranked country likely to be considered amenable to most DUers is Switzerland which is 9th with 93/14/107
Japan and Israel may have some fans at 11th and 12th with 74/37/111 and 67/45/112


BTW the very highest scored lowest ranked that may have very "good" GINI ratings (highest numbers of first datum mean most equal wealth spread) but also lousy GDP/PPP

Ethiopia 112/213/325 (the second datum goes higher than 135 because more countries report out GDP/PPP than GINI.
Kyrgyzsstan 111/180/291
Bangladesh 94/195/289
Tazania 89/199/288
Tajikistan 99/187/286

Typical DU darlings come out in about the middle with every good GINI scores but middling PPP

Sweden 134/27/161 (57th)
Norway 133/2/135 (30th). Norway is probably the best refutation of the teabagger datum because it is 3rd best GINI and 2nd highest GDP/PP.

So it comes down to do we want to be Hong Kong or Norway I guess!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmallind]

20. As stated. That's why this is directional only

Since there is no country where there is widespraed prosperity, and since it cannot be accurately measured, the best we can come up with is approximations.

It's not my argument one way or the other, just the closest we can come with publicly available data.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AdHocSolver]

24. The "statistics" you cite are meaningless drivel to this discussion.

Those statistics are dragged out because they were designed millennia ago by tribal witch doctors to cause confusion in anyone who asked a question of the tribal chiefs the truthful answer of which might incite rebellion among the tribe.

They have been adopted by modern day capitalists to confuse the ignorant masses with large numbers that are meaningful only to professional economists in their efforts to convince the masses that they, the economists, actually understand how the "real" economy works.

Ninety percent of the economists either don't understand why we are in the predicament we are in or they are purposely misleading the public to protect their corporate masters.

[snot]

25. When I point to Norway, a counter-argument I get is

that Norway has fantastic oil wealth that supports its social services.

I don't know enough about it to know whether this is true.

[AdHocSolver]

23. There is a way to "measure" widespread "prosperity".

Determine how closely the general population fits into the following categories.

Low unemployment.

Family supporting jobs available for all who want to work.

Affordable, universal health care.

Very few homeless, with homeless shelters readily available for those in need.

Affordable education for all.

No one goes hungry, especially no children suffer from hunger. Food pantries and meal programs readily available.

A large middle class and upward mobility possible for those who work for it.

There are many more measures of widespread prosperity that could be suggested.

[OnionPatch]

29. By prosperity, I meant a large middle class.

One where the vast majority of people are living in conditions like FDR described in his second bill of rights. One where a person works a reasonable amount of hours in safe conditions and can afford a home for their family in a healthy environment, nutritious food, education for their children, medical care, a reasonable amount of recreation, the ability to retire in dignity. There would also be an effective safety net to protect the sick and needy. I'm not talking about a society where everyone is rich, just not suffering.

[abelenkpe]

27. Your feelings are correct.

Trust your feelings.


I love how tea party and conservative candidates are running on the promise to slash government jobs. They claim this will save the government money. Really? How's that? Laying off tens of thousands of workers in a down economy will only mean that many more people collecting unemployment, unable to pay their bills and mortgage, unable to pay their taxes, requiring government assistance, unable to buy necessities or anything else. This will trickle out into the economy at large causing many private businesses to cut back, lay off more workers or go out of business altogether. What it won't do is save the government or community money in any way shape or form. It will cripple government and local economies at a time when it would be needed more than ever leaving our society in ruins.

That is what tea-partiers are cheering for.

This is made possible by an education system undermined and under attack. And by allowing FOX news to broadcast outright lies, spoken through pundits or entertainers and through purposeful editing with no fines or punishment. It's disgusting.

We cannot allow social security to be taken away. What irks me most are people like my parents writing letters and protesting with tea-partiers to destroy social security while gleefully cashing their own social security checks. See, it's for them, not for their children.

90 percent tax rates, strong labor unions, a booming society...for them not for their children.

Nice, huh?